8. VIOLETA R. TAHAW, complainant, vs. ATTY. JEREMIAS P. VITAN, respondent. A.C. No. 6441.

October 21, 2004 Facts: Victoria Tahaw (Tahaw), the complainant, secured the services of respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan (Vitan) for filing appropriate action for a partition of a real property located in Makati City delivering to respondent 4 checks amounting to P30,000.00. Upon verification to check if a case has been filed for and in her behalf, she was issued a certification by the Clerk of Court in Makati that no such case was filed prompting Tahaw to write the respondent informing him that she was terminating his services as counsel and demanded the refund of the P30,000.00 to which Vitan failed to return prompting to file a complaint of disbarment or suspension with IBP.

Issue: Whether or not the non filing of a case constitute a remiss in the lawyers responsibilities which can be penalized by disbarment or suspension with the IBP.

Held: The Court agreed with the recommendation of the IBP that respondent has been remiss in his responsibilities. He is found guilty of violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to file the necessary pleading for his clients case and for the failure to return and immediately deliver the funds of his client advanced for the purpose of filing the said case, upon demand, and even after his commitment with the IBP to do so. Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The trust and confidence of clients require in a lawyer a high standard and appreciation of his duty to them. Nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. The respondent was suspended for six months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

9. REMEDIOS RAMIREZ TAPUCAR, complainant, vs. ATTY. LAURO L. TAPUCAR, respondent. PER CURIAM A.C. No. 4148. July 30, 1998 Facts: Remedios Tapucar (RTapucar), complainant and Atty. Lauro Tapucar (LTapucar) were married with 11 children. When respondent became a CFI judge, he cohabited with Elena Pea with whom he had 2 children. A certain Atty. Tranquilino Calo filed an administrative complaint against respondent for immorality. After investigation, the penalty of suspension from office for a period of six months without pay was meted upon the respondent. Despite this penalty, respondent still continued to cohabit with Elena, giving rise to another charge of immorality and other administrative cases, such as: conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, and grossly immoral conduct. These cases were consolidated and after investigation, the Court ordered his dismissal and separation from the service. However, the order of dismissal as a judge did not even propel RTapucar to change his ways, and even continued living with Elena which resulted to abandonment of complainant and his children. Respondent later contracted marriage with Elena while the respondent's marriage to complainant subsisted which resulted to the alleged suffering of her children because of their fathers acts, including deception and intrigues against them. Complainant filed the petition for disbarment under the compulsion of the maternal impulse to shield and protect her children from the despotic and cruel acts of their own father.

Issue: Whether or not the actions of the respondent constitute grounds for disbarment.

Held: The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that: Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Members of the Bar, must live up to the standards and norms expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility always. Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, as well as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Keeping a mistress, entering into another marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his disregard of family obligations, morality and

decency, the law and the lawyer's oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's character, his moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action. Respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar is disbarred and his name is stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys.

10. ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, respondent. A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003 Facts: Atty. Ismael Khan, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Public Information Office filed a case for improper advertising and solicitation of legal services against Rizalino T. Simbillo who advertised himself as an Annulment of Marriage Specialist which appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and further research showed that similar advertisements were published in the Manila Bulletin in August 2 and 6, 2000 and in the Philippine Star in August 5, 2000. Simbillos advertisement undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage, and violated rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court. After he pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to violate the rules eight months after filing his answer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper and in the October 5, 2001

Issue: Whether or not Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

Held: Atty. Simbillo was found to have violated Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, section 27 of the Rules of Court, and therefore, suspended from the practice of Law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money is the primary consideration; Rule 2.03 A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.

Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Rule 138, Sec 27 of the Rules of Court states: Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so. The following elements distinguish legal profession from business: 1. A duty of public service 2. A relation as an officer of the court to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability 3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. Respondent advertised himself as an Annulment Specialist, and by this he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage encouraging people who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. Solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed, however, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession.

11. Pedro L. Linsangan vs Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009 Facts: Pedro Linsangan (Linsangan) of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a complaint of disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino (Tolentino) for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services alleging that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation to said respondent with the promise of financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages. Complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano convinced him to sever his lawyer-client relations with complainant and use respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00.

Issue: Whether or not, Tolentinos actions constitute disbarment.

Held: The court adopted the findings of the IBP on unethical conduct of the respondent whereby it found the respondent to have encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 2.03 of the CPR which provide; Rule 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS. Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides: Rule 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE. This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty. Based on such, Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino is found to have violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, of the CPR and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

12. Dominador Burbe, complainant, vs Atty. Alberto C. Magulta AC No. 99-634 Facts: Dominador P. Burbe (Burbe) filed a complaint for the disbarment or suspension or any other disciplinary action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta (Magulta). Burbe engaged the services of the respondent to help him recover a claim of money against a creditor. Consequent to the agreement, respondent prepared demand letters for the petitioner, which were not successful to which Magulta intimated that a case should already be filed. As a result, petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts (P 25,000.00) for the filing of the case. After a couple of months, the petitioner did not receive any feedback as to the status of his case which prompted him to make several follow-ups in the lawyers office but to no avail. The lawyer, to prove that the case had already been filed even invited petitioner to come with him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of the case. Petitioner was made to wait for hours in the prosecutors office while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of Court to inquire about the case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner with the news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day. Doubting the acts of the lawyer, petitioner

personally went to the office of the clerk of court to verify the progress of the case only to find out that no such case had been filed. Petitioner confronted Magulta where he continued to lie with the excuse that the delay was being caused by the court personnel, and only when shown the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint because he had spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose; and to appease petitioners feelings, he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Magultas actions should be meted out with suspension, disbarment or any disciplinary action.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the findings and decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: with complainants deposit of the filing fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent was created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by his client. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent on the part of the money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds. Atty. Alberto C. Magulta is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

13. Roberto Soriano vs Atty. Manuel Dizon A. C. No. 6792 Facts: Roberto Soriano filed a complaint affidavit for the disbarment of Atty. Manuel Dizon with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging that respondent had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01of the Code of Professional Responsibility and that the conviction of the latter for frustrated homicide constitute moral turpitude and should result in his disbarment. Issue: 1. Whether or not Atty. Dizon violated Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilities.

2. Whether or not his crime of frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude which warrants disbarment.

Held: On the first issue, the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP that the respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1of t he Co de of Pr o f e s s i o n a l Re s p o n s i b i l i t y through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to fulfill his civil liabilities. He has brazenly violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts and has also shown through this actions t h a t h e i s wa nt i n g i n e v e n a b a s i c sense of justice. He obtained the benevolence of the trial court when it s u s p e n d e d h i s s e n t e n c e a n d g r a n t e d h i m probation. It has been four years already since he was ordered to settle his civil l i a b i l i t i e s t o c om pl a i n a nt a nd ye t , respondent remains adamant in refusing to fulfill his civil obligations. Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Thus, on the second issue, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit to uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral character. In the instant case, respondent has been found guilty; and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated homicide. The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct, respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness, which is definitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a lawyer. The appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continue as a member of the bar. Thus, the decision to order the disbarment of Atty. Dizon and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

14. HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI, Complainant, vs. DIOSDADO S. FLORES, Respondent A.M. No. (2170-MC) P-1356 November 21, 1979. Facts: Hon. Remigio E. Zari, Presiding Judge of Branch VI City Court of Quezon City, recommended the dismissal from the service of Mr. Diosdado S. Flores, Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI, City Court, on grounds of moral turpitude and persistent attempts to unduly influence the complainant amounting to undue interest in cases pending before Branch VI and gross discourtesy to superior officers as manifested

by his uncalled for and unjustified use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the City Judges. Issue: Whether or not respondents acts constitute grounds for dismissal from the service.

Held: In his affidavit subscribed and sworn to before then City Judge Oscar A. Inocentes on June 10, 1969, the respondent stated that I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record. This claim is not true because the respondent had been convicted of libel in Criminal Case No. Q-7171, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, in a sentence dated April 28, 1967. This prevarication in a sworn statement is a ground for serious disciplinary action. That in his accomplished Civil Service Form No. 212 which was subscribed and sworn to, the respondent admits having acted as counsel for three companies; and that the giving of legal advice by notaries and others who are not admitted to the practice of law is dangerous to the welfare of the community, because such persons have not demonstrated their capacity by submitting to examinations lawfully established in the practice of law. The respondent's conviction for libel shows his propensity to speak ill of others as reflected in his letter to Judge Minerva C. Genovea, then Executive Judge of the City Court of Quezon City which contains defamatory and uncalled for language.es virtual law library The handwritten notes of the respondent regarding different cases pending in Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City, presided by the complainant, show that the respondent had exerted undue influence in the disposition of the cases mentioned therein. Respondent, Diosdado S. Flores, is dismissed as Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City, with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and with prejudice to reinstatement in the national and local governments, as well as, in any government instrumentality or agency including government owned or controlled corporations.